After Concord noticed, Liz admitted that she played as vein in Ladle 83 after having been listed on the roster and playing in an earlier round for Acceleration. This is the second time she has done this, the first time she impersonated Dr. House. I forget which Ladle. Per http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php/ ... rial_works, as a Ladle Enthusiast I am initiating a pm vote trial and ask that you all vote regarding this matter.

As per the Armagetron Wiki here is how the voting takes place:

Armagetron Wiki wrote:Did the accused player, <name>, violate Rule #<n> or commit an offense? No, Yes and they should receive (1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings)
If neither option receives 2/3 of the vote, then “No” is the winner. For the “Yes” option to win it must receive 2/3 of the vote. If the “Yes” option is the winner and there is a tie between the number of warning choices, then the leftmost tied-option is the winner.
Warnings have the following rules:
If a player is convicted of committing an offense, then all active warnings will stay active for an additional 2 Ladles. Otherwise if a warning has expired, then it can be rescinded.
If a player is sentenced to 1, 2, or 3 warnings from the trial, then the warning(s) will be added to the Penalty Box. They will initially expire after 4, 8, and 12 Ladles respectively.
If a player has 2 or more active warnings, then they can not be a Team Leader.
If a player is convicted of committing an offense and has 3 or more active warnings, then they will serve a Ladle suspension of length 2 ^ (number of active warnings - 3). Here is a list of examples:
3 warnings: 2 ^ (3 - 3) = 2 ^ 0 = 1 Ladle
4 warnings: 2 ^ (4 - 3) = 2 ^ 1 = 2 Ladles
5 warnings: 2 ^ (5 - 3) = 2 ^ 2 = 4 Ladles

Did the accused player, Liz, violate Rule #2 (Team Leaders must list their Global ID on the Challenge board. Players can not be signed up under multiple teams. You may only play for one team each Ladle. commit an offense? No, Yes and they should receive (1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings)?

Where I am pm'ing 2 teamleaders for one team, only one vote per team needs to be submitted. Thank you for you quick assistance with this matter.

No sense in debating this in the other thread much when there is a process to deal with the problem.

Last edited by compguygene on Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

You may have a point, Sine. I took the simplistic view that Liz admitted violating rule #2 in playing for 2 teams. The other potential party I assumed would require their own pm trial. It took enough time in my day to put this together, that is the next priority to straighten this mess out.

Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

Let's simply follow the procedure and give them their punishments, with harsher ones to follow if they try to go around them before they end. They'll likely get caught if they do.

Stop the nonsense about permanently excluding them from the community, though.

I am so glad that Titanoboa and a few others are speaking up about this. Since this is the topic about the current PM vote trial, let's talk about it here...

Implicitly, by the rules having been written, and accepted, and used for 53 Ladles and enforced at least one time, we have a precedent that has been set. If we are going to be a civilized community, we have to live by the rules that we set down. If the government of the nation that you live in charged you with petty theft for stealing a bag of chips, and the maximum penalty by law for that crime was 6 months in jail, I think that we can all agree that it would be wrong for the government to change the law after you had been charged with the crime. In legal lingo, that is called an ex post facto law, a law made after the fact that is retroactive. This is why in the United States such laws are illegal in criminal matters. It is just morally wrong.
If we want to change the rules, we can do that. But that would be after this is dealt with, not before.
I also would like to address the issue of bans by server owners in their own tournament servers. This is something in the Ladle rules that was deliberately left as a gray area.

Armageton Wiki wrote:12. Be aware of preexisting bans on tournament servers. If you were previously banned from a Ladle server it is your responsibility to discover the ban and make arrangements with the server administrator beforehand. There is no guarantee a ban can be lifted on Ladle day.

This is rule #12. It is a very clear indication that Server Owners may ban players. As Sinewav pointed out there is a simple check and balance against that, just don't use any server with the bans. Of course you will need to find others to host replacements, just to point out.

And now the results.

Enough votes have come in that more than 2/3 of the possible voters have voted for the maximum punishment of 3 warnings which means a ban for 1 Ladle. It also means that she will carry those 3 warning for the next 12 Ladles. So, any rule breaking on her part in the next year would have more severe consequences.

compguygene wrote:Yes. To be specific, you will carry those 3 warnings for the next 12 Ladles. So, let's say you break a rule again, and get another 3 warnings....you would then be banned for 2 Ladles, etc.

Right. Congratulations on being the first person in the Penalty Box. In the United States, we would also point out that you are the first woman in the Penalty Box because sexism. If you are tried and found guilty of any infractions during your 12 month probation the warnings get extended. The penalties also increase dramatically. A single warning, which would normally be the equivalent of "please don't do it again," suddenly becomes a two month ban and penalties increase exponentially (literally).

compguygene, thanks for your enthusiasm in starting this trial. However, it was not handled with the transparency this community expects and I still believe the trial was started prematurely. It is also clear you don't have a firm grasp of that section of the rules, but I admit it could be worded differently.